Let's do a short thread on this incredibly common misunderstanding because why not.
Here is the thing: war is kinda like sex. No matter what you've heard about it, a surprising amount of it is actually fairly *consensual*. This is a fantastically important point that most people seem to miss.
What does "consent" mean in this context? Well, imagine a weapon system, like, say, an AH-64 Apache. This is an aircraft designed to provide air support and blow up tanks. For it to be effective, the enemy has to consent to a form of warfare where there are tanks to blow up!
This isn't getting into whether the enemy is able to shoot one of these babies down or not. For an Apache to actually do much of anything useful, the form of warfare being waged has to occur within certain boundaries. Ergo: the war has to be a specific *kind* of war.
In warfare, consent can be *denied*. As in: actor A has a military that will most certainly win if the war is fought in a manner where A has an advantage over B. Therefore, B simply *refuses* to be fixed into the constraints where A will certainly win.
The word "guerilla" - (meaning little war) comes from just such a denial of consent during the Napoleonic wars. There was no way for the spanish to ever win against Napoleon. Anyone who tried got smashed. Therefore, the spanish simply refused to engage.
Instead, they opted to open up what Napoleon himself came to call the "spanish ulcer", fighting in such a manner that the *overwhelming* french advantage in warfare simply didn't matter.
Libs are going "Oh man the US army would just SMASH all these maga chuds, look at our tanks! Look at their chobham armor! Look at those Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannons, firing M829 "Silver Bullet" armor piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot tank rounds! Wow!"
But in reality, that smoothbore cannon is almost completely useless without consent. The sort of war that would be fought in the US - given the comparable levels of dominance that the US armed forces to Napoleon in his day - would echo the spanish ulcer.
Specifically, if you wanted to fight the US army, you wouldn't smuggle in some soviet junkyard T-34 and try to fight a US armored division. You'd use the most simple yet effective tactic in the book - ambush tactics, blending in with the civilian population.
Those AR-15s are more than enough to do a fairly fucking good job at this kind of warfare, because the point is not to form a tercio square out on some marching field, but to simply kill the enemy when their guard is down, and then melt away.
During Operation Banner - the british army's operation to keep a lid on northern Ireland - they deployed at most around 20.000 troops in an area about 2% the size of Texas. The Texas national guard comes in at 18.000 men, and Texas is, well, 100% the size of Texas.
Moreover, the official casualty ratio during the (decades long) operation are fairly telling. The british army sustained 1500 killed, and killed a bit over 300 people (again, officially). Out of those 300, fully 50% of those were innocent civilians.
That means that the british army reported a *ten to one casualty ratio* against the enemy. Spoiler alert: the british army in fact had tanks. And aircraft, and even nuclear warheads. The IRA had none of those things. And yet the british army didn't simply roll over them.
So what did the IRA have, if they didn't have tanks, fixed wing aircraft, nuclear submarines, or armored cars? Well, they had AR-15s. They in fact liked them so much they even wrote a song about them!

In closing, let's return to the US situation for a bit. The US armed forces combined will probably struggle to amass even 100.000 people you can really hand a M4 and tell to patrol Anytown, Idaho, keeping a look out for y'all Qaeda. The US army is *not* that large.
It's not designed to wage counterinsurgency in a country the size of the US, it's mostly designed to fight "near-peer competitors", to use the parlance of the Pentagon. That is, enemies that will *consent* to the sort of warfare where its shiny toys are likely to be of use!
Libs are flippant about this, because they don't understand this concept of consent. Without that consent, warfare against an enemy - especially your own population - is an *incredibly* gnarly affair.
Some estimates put the death toll of the Cristero war in Mexico to a quarter of a million people (!). The Cristeros didn't have tanks either, nor chemical weapons, recoilless rifles, airplanes, or even uniforms. And that is exactly what made the conflict so destructive.
The US is very, very big, it is incredibly polarized by region, the US army recruits from the areas that the army would likely need to suppress, and modern infrastructure is incredibly easy to disrupt. The US power grid is particularly easy to knock out.
In closing, libs simply don't know how to rule. They think this shit is somehow "free", that all a ruler has to do is press the big red button that says "boom" and then all the enemies get blown up. But that's not how it works.
Far from being assured of victory, the US armed forces are in fact fairly ill-prepared for any scenario approaching that of the Troubles - or especially that of the Cristero uprising. Meanwhile, all the libs can do is content themselves with fairly tales. The end.
Whether a civil war or a troubles scenario is *likely* is of course another question entirely, but the idea that it is *unlikely* due to "lol we'd just use our indestructible tanks to blow the chuds up" is such an incredibly foolish misconception about what warfare is.
END NOTE: the IRA in fact mostly used Armalite AR-18s, not AR-15s. Though for libs, they might as well be the same gun (and they are pretty similar in operation), which is why I stated they used AR-15. I apologize to any maga chuds who might have taken offense at this fibbing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Anglo Respecter 40K

Anglo Respecter 40K Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Tinkzorg

11 Oct
The big secret to history that nobody really tells you and that you have to find out by actually researching it yourself is that having 0 "revolutionary organization" is pretty much a prerequisite for having a revolution.

I'm not joking about this, by the way.
The absolutely most standard way these historical events play out is that ordinary people get fed up and give the system a shove it doesn't survive, at which point the "leaders" of the putative revolution have to hurriedly get out of bed and pretend they planned it all along.
The french revolution is a masterclass in this, because this dynamic repeats from the very beginning of it until basically the directory. From the day of the tiles to the great panic to the storming of the bastille to the women's march on versailles, and even beyond.
Read 5 tweets
11 Oct
What this all boils down to is that in the US you have a situation where the political classes - and certainly its putative "dissident" elements - are almost completely sidelined, while non-political people are driving events.
You saw the first stirrings of this with J6, where the figure of the mob appeared outside of the control of Trump or anyone else, which really spooked the GOP establishment. Now, these mandates - meant as a loyalty test by the democrats - have *completely* gone off the rails.
The US at this point is clearly in a textbook pre-revolutionary situation politically. By that I mean something fairly specific: a state where the political classes are discombobulated and/or deligimated, and ordinary politics become *non-linear*.
Read 12 tweets
11 Oct
I might as well do a thread on this issue of "is a civil war/troubles scenario a realistic scenario for the US?", seeing as this is the other area where there are a lot of misconceptions and faulty reasoning, mostly from the right, who love to loathe their own countrymen.
First off: a repeat of the first civil war is just something you can cross off the list. The US army - or whatever elements of it end up on different sides of some political divide - can't actually fight a war under those conditions. Why? Because US infrastructure.
US infrastructure is currently held together by duct tape and the consent of the governed. It is in fact incredibly easy to simply knock out most of the country's power grid. The stations you would need to hit aren't classified, you can probably just FOIA that stuff.
Read 30 tweets
12 Jul
The realization that North Korea is just as bad or worse than most people think it is, while simultaneously being less of an inhuman, dystopian nightmare than South Korea, is probably the single most depressing blackpill I've had the displeasure of swallowing.
North Korea: poor mountainous authoritarian shithole, you're basically living in Asian Albania.

South Korea: birthrates are permanently below levels otherwise only seen during acute famines, students work more than interns in soviet labor camps, this is somehow seen as normal.
South Korea is basically all the worst parts of the west, except that instead of having a 200 year run-up, the destruction of the old culture and social mores took place within the span of a single generation. It's basically western capitalism's own Soviet Union experiment.
Read 6 tweets
21 Mar
Holy shit, South Korea is actually a worse place to live than North Korea. I say this without any hint of irony whatsoever. Parents forcing you to study from 5 am to 2 am every single day. World's lowest fertility rate at less than 1 child per woman.
"It is a commonly known saying in Korea that 'If you sleep three hours a night, you may get into a top 'SKY university;' If you sleep four hours each night, you may get into another university; if you sleep five or more hours each night, forget about getting into any university.'
Accordingly, many high school students in their final year do not have any free time for holidays, birthdays or vacations before the NCATs (National College Scholastic Aptitude Test, Korean: 수능), which are university entrance exams held by the Ministry of Education.
Read 6 tweets
21 Mar
"High schools in South Korea teach students for three years, from first grade (age 15–17) to third grade (age 17–19), and students commonly graduate at age 18 or 19. High school students are commonly expected to study increasingly long hours each year moving toward graduation -
-become competitive and be able to enter attractive universities in Korea that almost all parents and teachers want students to enter. Many high school students wake and leave home in the morning at 5 am. When the school is over at 4 pm, they go to a studying room in the school -
or to a library to study instead of going home. This is called 'Yaja', which literally means 'evening self-study'. They don't need to go home to eat dinner since most schools provide paid dinner for students.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!